From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Mika Westerberg Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3] gpio: acpi: separation of concerns Date: Mon, 3 Oct 2016 15:44:24 +0300 Message-ID: <20161003124424.GA1765@lahna.fi.intel.com> References: <1475485360-15127-1-git-send-email-linus.walleij@linaro.org> <1475485360-15127-2-git-send-email-linus.walleij@linaro.org> <20161003102446.GA1218@lahna.fi.intel.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Received: from mga04.intel.com ([192.55.52.120]:15851 "EHLO mga04.intel.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751061AbcJCMo3 (ORCPT ); Mon, 3 Oct 2016 08:44:29 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-gpio-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-gpio@vger.kernel.org To: Linus Walleij Cc: "linux-gpio@vger.kernel.org" , Alexandre Courbot , "Rafael J . Wysocki" On Mon, Oct 03, 2016 at 02:36:50PM +0200, Linus Walleij wrote: > > -ENXIO? > > Sorry for not writing all that I think. > > The code works like such that if -ENOENT is returned, the core > will proceed to check for presence of boardfile-type hardcoded > descriptor tables. Which might be relevant. > > (The mechanism should be used as fallback also when no > desc is found in the ACPI lookup, actually.) Makes sense. Thanks for the clarification.